For those that are suggesting that this is a physical security risk, well so is wearing a traditional Rolex or other big name watch brand. In fact, you could argue that it is safer since the amount of Bitcoin that's on it could be nothing, and not worth the hassle of trying to steal. Whereas, criminals know how much that Rolex is on your wrist, and they likely all ready have fences lined up to offload Rolex watches. A bitcoin watch in itself isn't going to be worth much, and as long as the program, and the connection to the watch is secure, then it isn't too risky. If the watch has its private keys on this watch, then that's just silly. It should just have a QR code, and a wallet that can simply operate as a "watch" address. If you did want to incorporate a payment system right off the cuff , then you would approach in similar to how Trezor, and other hardware wallets approach the concept.

Despite that, this isn't something I see taking off. Its gimmicky, and reminds me of the movie "In Time", where you are literally looking at your wealth (or in the movie life remaining) on your wrist.

The annoying part about this, is we will start to see the media spin this off in a negative light on Bitcoin, and the Bitcoin community completely ignoring the fact that crime, and ransoms happen with fiat currencies too.

As for the statement from Twitter; I'm wondering how this was done exactly, assuming that the tools are only available to accounts which are of efficient privilege, was a staff users account compromised, and then they proceeded to attack specific targets such as Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Jeff Besos. Those are people who I would consider to be involved in similar fields, and is definitely a orchestrated attack to try, and get as much money as possible from the attempt knowing that this would have been shut down fairly quickly.

Twitter might want to consider having staff actions peer reviewed by other staff users to prevent unauthorized action. Although, it would increase the work of the staff users, Twitter certainly has the resources to do something like that.

Update: It does seem that this was a compromise at a wider scale than I initially expected, but details on how it happened are lacking at the time being.

To put into perspective, I registered on the forum 7 years ago, and I'm not even close to half of your age. I love that this forum in particular seems to attract people from all kinds of different backgrounds.

I personally prefer people to adopt the culture that I would describe as common decency; Give everyone respect, unless they've specifically given you a reason not too. Of course, you can have more respect for those with particular ideas, or innovations like the Elon Musks of the world as well as those that are older than you. However, a measurement of how wise or respectable someone should not be associated with age. Of course, JetCash has shown themselves as a respectable user of the forum. Of course, I understand that's your culture, and I respect that, so I'm not trying to change that, or suggest that its wrong in anyway, and I definitely agree that reaching high end ages is particularly respectable, especially if they've kept good values, and all that. It just seems that respect is being lost for fellow humans, unless they have some sort of achievement or accolade to their name, whether that be old, or a oscar winner. When from my eyes, we should be respecting everyone regardless of achievements, and other related things. One of my biggest pet peeves is dismissing someone immediately because they are "young" or they don't have "experience", yet what that person is proposing could be innovative, and somewhat groundbreaking in your field.  Therefore, I like to take the approach of listening to everyone regardless of their age, or experience. Of course, it is some times fascinating to hear people that have vasts amount of experience in a field, but I find it equally as impressive for new ideas, and approaches.

Of course, I made the point about Elon Musk, since he has achieved far greater than the average human, and its only natural to look at these people with some sort of admiration, and respect their views even if they're wrong at times.

I imagine the Fury Vs Joshua contract has a clause in it that Fury has to win against Wilder, otherwise it will be cancelled. I'm confident that Fury will win it again, because in my opinion he's won the past two fights with a little controversial scores the first time around. However, I know the threat that Wilder possesses. He might not be the best boxer, but he definitely is a fighter, and has a dynamite right hand. Even, though I don't expect massive improvements from Wilder, and he'll look for that one punch knockout again. I just hope Fury goes in there non complacent, and doesn't switch off at any point as we've seen what can happen if that does happen.

Yeah, as above there is no dedicated moderator. Therefore, only Admins, global moderators, and patrollers will receive reports there. The latter being only reports made on newbie accounts. If you ever want to ask for advice from a staff member, its a good place to start at dedicated moderators, but in this case there isn't any, so you can either contact any moderator that you think has enough experience, or a global moderator directly. Although, this doesn't guarantee a reply, as it would be a major time contribution to respond to all messages we get, usually I like to respond to most inquiries about the rules, and I know a few others do too.

I had multiple conversations with staff members before being appointed myself. Usually, started by myself to broaden my knowledge on forum rules so I could effectively report.

Although, I agree that anti viruses are largely useless. There is a way of avoiding deleting your system if you suspect you have been compromised. Although, this would require isolation as I talk about fairly regular, and as mentioned above a operating system such as Qubes OS would be able to assure in most cases that a virus is contained to that environment, and not leak out to other instances. You can isolate your network, and various different things as long as your hardware supports virtualization technology. Its not perfect as nothing ever really is, but its the closest you'd get from having a physically isolated computer.

Social engineering is by far the most used method, because normally the very weak point of a system is the person that is employed by the company, and doesn't have knowledge in social engineering attempts. Usually, somewhat low qualified, and low wage, where as if they wanted to hack into the system through a sophisticated way they would be likely dealing with Cyber Security experts which are on a lot of money, and therefore put more effort into their work. For example, a lowly paid, and therefore lowly motivated employee with decent access to the backend usually isn't going to be as motivated to protect against these types of attacks.

The justification for the fees seems to be the relatively good security that it provides. For example, if you wanted to do a local exchange with someone you have to meet that person, and ultimately trust them with the transaction, as well as them knowing your identity, and various other things. This is a peerless transaction in the sense that it doesn't require another person, and removes the risks that are associated with that.

Although, there's the security risk that's been mentioned with tampering, but most of them are covered by security cameras, and most people aren't that interested in tampering with Bitcoin ATM machines since tampering with the cash ATMs would be far more profitable due to the sheer amount of volume they get as opposed to Bitcoin ATMs.

If you ever need to download untrusted software for whatever reason, you should only be doing that in an isolated environment, and should never allow that software to touch a space where your personal or work environment is. There are a number of malware analysis courses by COMPTIA which provide a good foundation. Virtualbox, vmware, and other software like this isn't enough to be considered "isolated". Either a physical break is needed or something like Qubes OS that handles the virtualization a little bit differently to virtual machine software.

Depends on the campaign manager. If the campaign manager counts the number of posts during a period then it should be unaffected. However, if a campaign manager is solely basing it on post count, then it may well be effect you. Most of the good signature campaign managers will be reviewing the amount of posts within the period that they're paying for though. Honestly, some of the lower quality campaigns out there, and there's a lot of them in the altcoin section, are not counting during a period, and are simply looking at the total post count during a time period.

On a forum viewpoint, a deleted post on its own will not have any effect on your signature. Although, some users do receive signature bans for certain actions taken on the forum such as spamming etc.

I guess the thing is with captchas is they are too easily bypassed either through getting an automated service to do them for you or by bypassing it using the sound system that some of them offer. I'm not sure the best way of going about this. There's been quizzes that have been suggested in the past, which could have randomized answers. Although, even then this could eventually be automated by those that find it worthwhile to make new accounts.

Yeah, due to the compatibility of QubesOS, and various different hardware out there it can be difficult sourcing an affordable option, and it may be easier for physical isolation as you mentioned. Although, I've never really sat down, and found out the specifics since most of my computers are currently have the required virtualization capability, and are on the certified hardware list. There are some ThinkPads out there that you can get for a fairly decent price considering the hardware present, but considering most people won't use the virtualization capability for anything other than this it might be a big compromise to make. Physical isolation might be better in that regard, although then there's the issue of having two separate computers for two different things, and really the Bitcoin one if you're going to that extent should only be used for limited things involved with Bitcoin.

Privacy is a massive ball ache as to keep it realistic, and not annoying you are going to compromise on certain things. I've had this debate in my head for many years, and I almost always end up compromising on some front. Obviously, an offline computer is a great option for privacy, although factoring into equation what you're going to be using Bitcoin for. If its just for Holding as per this thread, then a offline computer is perfect. However, if you want to use Bitcoin more like the currency it is, and send transactions you're unfortuantly going to need to compromise on privacy at some point. That's where the isolation comes into play, and physicial isolation would be the go too as pointed out above. However, depending on your situation an operating system such as QubesOS (Others are available) might be worth looking into if you're frequently needing to access Bitcoin related things. Then comes into the whole debate whether a hardware wallet would be good for security sake if you're wanting to access your funds regularly on a live computer, and then you trusting a third party through their software, and hardware.

Privacy, and security is a massive worm hole that you could delve in for weeks. Every now, and again I have a complete revamp of my security, where I look to improve upon it, and there's currently many many things I want to get sorted. As an example of someone looking into privacy. and security considerations; You've decided upon using two computers, that both will access the internet, but one of them is using isolation through software. Then you would need to trust the very manufacturers of the hardware. This is where you start to enter the world of tinfoil hats, but its probably a legitimate consideration if you want to take privacy that seriously. The easiest example I can give, is when people store Bitcoin on their phones (which I would recommend against not only for the following reasons) you are trusting the operating system designed by either apple or android. Android is partly open source, but there are large parts of the operating system which is closed source. So, whatever operating system you choose whether its android, windows 10, Ubuntu, or QubesOS you need to be able to trust it. Luckily, completely open source software does exist, but the most popular operating system as of today (Windows 10) is not.

If you really want to take Bitcoin privacy seriously it might be worth considering compartilization either through physical isolation or a operating system such as Qubes OS. There is no compromise when concerning privacy, and you either do it correctly or not at all, because keeping your privacy is actually rather difficult, and can be ruined instantly with a wrong move. For example, the incognito is such a blanket statement, and going into incognito just to disable extensions is a little weird to me. Personally, I'd either recommend using an entirely different web browser so that you don't get mixed up or forget to turn on incognito or as mentioned use some sort of isolation method. Its a common misconception that incognito mode is privacy friendly, when in reality it isn't that much better than just normal browsing mode.

Ideally, physical isolation is best, and if you have a dedicated machine specifically for the use of Bitcoin you don't need most of the ease of use extensions that people use. I rarely have more than 3 extensions on my browsing machine, but I understand a lot of people like to install various different ones. The ones I'd recommend is HTTP everywhere, Privacy Badger, and Noscript if you're lazy, and potentially a ad blocking extension. Preferably you would be using open source extensions, and would know the data they collect, and can make a educated decision on whether its worth using it as opposed to risking your privacy.

However, coming back to physical isolation; I understand that this can be impractical for many people, as its far more cost than simply using a software based isolation method, but it is by the most effective. Using any other method will likely result in human error, and you compromising your privacy over a mistake.  Alternatively, there's ways to do it through software such as Qubes OS which offers a layering system inside the operating system, however for this to use you need virtualization capability on your motherboard which not all computers have especially older systems. Although, the software is pretty neat, and is definitely a step in the right direction for anything involving privacy, and not just to be used with Bitcoin.

Unfortunately, creating sections with this logic applied would result in many more sections being made, and drowning out the existing ones as well as separating the existing community into smaller sub sections. It would become very tedious to scroll through all the sections, as most users either aren't aware that you can ignore sections or don't want to ignore sections when content in them might pique their interest from time to time.

Simply put; Sections should only be created once its painfully obvious that the existing sections are too broad of a term, and most importantly there is existing content currently drowning out the rest of the content in these sections. Only then, should sections be created to prevent having sections which are largely empty.

I'd recommend Open broadcasting software (OBS) as its a open source software, and free to use. Its probably the most used ever since Fraps was popular a few years ago. Its wickedly easy to get setup, and its also got advanced features which could benefit Youtube or live streaming platforms such as Twitch.

I know these sort of things happen a lot right, and I know a lot of people get stung by them. However, when you are advertising a giveaway for 5000 BTC, surely people don't actually fall for that? That's a lot of Bitcoin for early adopters let alone for someone willing to give away. This is usually from youtube accounts, and people who have zero presence within the Bitcoin community which is another huge red flag. I'm not convince that anyone actually falls for these ludicrous giveaways?

Most users will here bar a few exceptional users will look back at their post history, and feel their skin crawl from the amount that they didn't know, and the amount of "noobness" that they displayed. However, its a vital part of learning. I know the general consensus around here seems to be "This has been asked a thousand times", and although they do have a point I for one appreciate someone taking the time to learn in most cases an entirely different concept to traditional currencies. I know the argument could be to search for the answer, but this is another vital bit of learning, and generally comes after the noobish questions that we've all asked in one point of our lives.

Personally, I would like to see the forum become a little more newbie friendly not just from a community point of view, but also a forum point of view. I know there was discussions about an interactive quiz during sign up which could prove beneficial to those signing up without any idea how all of this works.

Lets also consider that searching a forum such as SMF through its own interface (ignore search engines) can be difficult, especially when this forum software is particularly outdated compared to more popular sites these days such as Reddit.

Unfortunately, there probably isn't enough demand for this to happen. Although, the altcoin marketplace gets a fair amount of traffic, and legitimately good projects are really needed within that space in my opinion. A gambling section within the altcoin section would likely to be a more realistic goal as opposed to a Blockchain gambling section as its a little more broader.

I like Fury's attitude, and depending on your outlook you could agree with him that hes already beaten Wilder twice. Yeah, it was given as a draw, but I for one was not shocked by the result, but knew that Fury had to do something big in that first fight to actually win it. I think its commonly known that home advantage is a thing, as it is humans judging at the end of the day, and bias will, and does creep in.

If Wilder didn't get that huge knockdown on Fury, I had him winning pretty much every single round, and in fact I think after the knockdown he even came out, and dominated for the rest of the match. I personally don't think one 10 round from Wilder would have caught up to the sheer amount of dominance that Fury displayed. Of course, the second fight he came in all guns blazing, and it pulled off.

The worst thing that can happen for boxing fans right now is for Fury to lose his belts, and the Joshua fight isn't as hyped up. Yeah, its still a huge fight, but ideally I would like to see both men entering that ring with their belts, and battle it out for the others. It will add to the atmosphere that this occasion will deserve.

Wilder wont step aside because this is his quickest route to getting back into the bigger fights. If he beats fury, and there is a possibility of that with his dynamite right hand he opens the pathway of more money because Joshua, and him surely have to face off then. I'm a massive Fury fan, and its just going to be a nearly occasion due to the fact in my head he's already proven hes a better fighter twice.

Yeah, and its incredibly frustrating because there's plenty of information out there warning of these pitfalls for these users that are buying into the nonsense. Unfortunately, and I really don't like admitting it, CSW as influence within the community, and controls some important resources that users stumble upon.

I'm not entirely sure of the best way to combat this malicious use of press either.